What can we do to maximize the benefits? - The Benefits of Japanese Patent Law System Over those of the US in the Pharmaceutical Area
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Benefits of Japanese Patent Law System Over
those of the US in the Pharmaceutical Area
What can we do to maximize the benefits?
William Han (GlaxoSmithKline)
Japan Patent Attorneys Association
International Activities Center
1“Long Long Time Ago”
• Poor Prosecution
• Slow, Claim scope narrow if granted at all, claim types not sufficient
• Weak Enforcement
• Court proceedings took forever; Infringement/damages hard to prove; Damages minimal
Regarding Enforcement:
October 1994 – US Commissioner of Patents Bruce Lehman:
“…the relative nonlitigiousness of Japanese society tends to minimize the importance of enforcement...US citizens
holding Japanese patents should be able to rely on those patents more than their US patents…”
Circa late 1990’s, JPO Commissioner Tekashi Isayama admitted:
“The Japanese market is dishonorably regarded as ‘lenient towards infringement’. It is sometimes said that one may as
well infringe whatever patents he likes in Japan, because court proceedings are slow and compensation insignificant”
(taken from Mr Shusaku Yamamoto’s post)
2• Aging population and attendant increase in healthcare cost, Japanese government started to
aggressively promote the use of generic drug since 2007
• More numbers:
• Sept 2016 – about 60% (by volume)
• Japanese government wants to increase the use to 80% in fiscal year 2018-2020!
• Patents are the only effective tools available to prevent the entry of generics
3
• Unlike in prior to 2007, opportunity cost of “not getting things right” in Japan could be enormousComparison Between US v Japanese Patent Term Extension System
• Both in Japan and US, if a drug undergoes clinical trial and review period, the patent
which covers the drug can be extended up to 5 years.
– However, overall the Japanese system can offer better protection
• Japanese Patent Law Article 67 (2): Where there is a period during which the patented
invention is unable to be worked because approvals [is needed]… to ensure the safety
[of pharmaceuticals]…, patent right may be extended … by a period not exceeding 5
years.
– Another improvement: Recent amendment to JP Patent Law took away requirement
for at least two years of clinical trial
• US Patent Law 35 USC § 156: Up to five years of extension for (1) ½ of IND
(Investigational New Drug) period and full review period; but (2) total period of remaining
patent term including the extension cannot exceed 14 years from approval; and (3) only
one patent extension for one product (active ingredient).
4Outline of the Japanese PTE system
Filing date Original Expiration date
20 years
Term Extended
5 years
>5 years of 5 years
clinical trial
and review
period
Registration
Start of clinical
Drug Approval
trial
• HUMIRA – Abbvie product (9 indications) – 2015 worldwide sale $12.5
billion (ex-US about $4.5 billion)
• Even one day of PTE could make huge difference in revenueJapanese PTE system is overall more
favorable!
Japan US
• Full 5 years – if clinical trial period • Even if in Japan get 5 years, US
+ review period are 5 years or could be under 5 years
more (and patent registration • ½ of IND period
occurs before these periods) • 14 year cap from approval
• Allows multiple PTEs for same • Allows only one PTE per active
active ingredient directed to e.g. ingredient
new formulation, dosage, use, etc. • No extension for the patent
• Same patent can be extended already extended once even if it
multiple times covering different covers different approved active
approved active ingredient ingredientsHUMIRA JP patents - multiple and longer extensions
• In US, base case expired and many companies including Amgen filed for biosimilar applications
• In Japan, Kyowa Hakko/Fujifilm developing Humira biosimilar
One patent family Normal expiration No of Extensions /patent Actual latest expiration
US6090382 (base case) 2/09/2016 One (no other patents 12/31/2016 (326 days)
extended)
JP Counterparts
JP3861118 2/10/2017 7 8/20/2021
JP4404181 2/10/2017 9 9/10/2020
JP4890997 2/10/2017 2 8/1/2018
JP5422501 2/10/2017 None (recently granted) 2/10/2017
JP56899902 2/10/2017 None (recently granted) 2/10/2017
JP5759526 2/10/2017 None (recently granted) 2/10/2017
JP5951056 2/10/2017 None (recently granted) 2/10/2017
7Comparison of Exclusivities US v Japan
Hypothetical Anti-arthritic Drug X’s (all same active ingredient)
Japan Scenario - Best case scenario: all Drug X will receive 5 year extension (conversely: each form only protected by each PTE)
2x/d 2017-Drug X IR (oral - immediate release – many side effects expire 2042
1x/d 2020- Drug X ER (oral – extended release – less side effect expire 2045 More sales
10mg expire 2052 Even more sales
2027 - Drug X IM (two intra-muscular formulations–
1x/month
much less side effect – 10 mg and 20 mg dose 20 mg expire 2052 Even more sales
US Scenario – Best case scenario: five year extension to 2042 which covers all forms
2x/d 2017 -Drug X IR (oral immediate release – many side effects expire 2042
1x/d 2020 -Drug X ER (oral – extended release – less side effect More sales
2027 -Drug X IM (two intra-muscular formulations– much
1x/month Even more sales
less side effect – 10mg and 20 mg dose
2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052Current Risks Affecting Pharmaceutical, Diagnostic, and Nutraceutical
Companies in the US
• Since 19th century, US patent office has granted patents on “products” found in
nature isolated by man
• US730176 - adrenaline “practically free from…associated gland tissue”
(issued 1903)
9
• US2449866 – claim 13: streptomycin (issued 1948 )Current Risks Affecting Pharmaceutical Industry, Diagnostic, and
Nutraceutical Companies in the US
• USPTO also issued patents on diagnostic methods for human diseases
• But dramatic changes started to occur since early 2010 following:
– Mayo v Prometheus (method of adjusting drug dosage; Supreme Court, 2012);
– AMP v Myriad (human genes; Supreme Court, 2013)
– Sequenom v Ariosa (genetic diagnostics; CAFC 2015, cert denied)
– Uncertainties on patent eligibility on potential important pharmaceutical assets
• Proteins, antibiotics, and other pharmaceutically active agents found in nature
• Diagnostics methods for predicting and diagnosing diseases
– The enforceability of already issued patents not clear
– Impacting in-licensing, patent filings and maintenance activities
10AMP v Myriad – Patentability of Genes
• U of Utah located and isolated BRAC1/2 genes, and discovered mutated forms are
associated with ovarian and breast cancer.
• Filed patents on isolated DNA encoding BRAC1/2 (mutated and wildtype) genes, which
Myriad licensed
• U.S. 5747282 for BRCA 1
1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide…set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
5. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 1.
• U.S. 5837492 for BRCA 2 (also US5693473)
1. An isolated DNA molecule coding for a BRCA2 polypeptide...set forth in SEQ ID NO:2.
6. An isolated DNA molecule coding for a mutated form of the BRCA2 polypeptide set forth in
SEQ ID NO:2, wherein said mutated form of the BRCA2 polypeptide is associated with
susceptibility to cancer.
11Patent Eligibility
35 U.S.C. § 101 INVENTIONS PATENTABLE
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter….. may obtain a patent…
• But courts have always maintained “judicial exceptions” of (a) pure laws of nature, (b)
natural phenomenon, and (c) abstract idea not patentable themselves, but their
application patentable.
Supreme Court in Myriad
“A naturally occurring DNA… is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it
has been isolated…."
– BRCA1/2 genes are “law of nature”
– Isolated DNA is not a patentable subject matter under § 101, unless it is significantly
different from found in nature. (adopted the analysis of Mayo)
• cDNA is patentable because it not naturally occurring
12Examination Guidelines JP vs US
USPTO Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility
• Dec 2014, Nature–Based Product Examination Guideline (also see May 2016 Life Science Examples)
– Antibiotic L (protein) – not patent eligible
– Purified antibiotic L – patent eligible (when purified takes different form)
– “Purified Amazonic acid” – not patent eligible
Japanese Patent Law
• Article 29 (1),… an invention that is industrially applicable may be entitled to… a patent....
• Article 2, paragraph 1 defines invention as "the highly advanced creation of technical ideas by which a law of nature
is utilized".
Japanese Examination Guideline
– Invention does not include simple “natural law” or “simple observation” (same as US)
– But invention include chemical products, micro-organisms, etc. which are isolated by man from nature
• DNA patent eligible so long as function known and having utility (2000 Examination Guideline)
• Japanese “Myriad Counterparts” lived their lives peacefully
– In 2015, FALCO (Kyoto company) took exclusive license from Myriad, and conducting BRCA1/2 tests in Japan
– Japanese gene patents and natural products patents still useful
13What about Diagnostics Patents?
• US6033857 (BRCA2) – CAFC ruled not patent eligible
– Claim 2. A method of diagnosing a predisposition for breast cancer…[by] comparing …
BRAC2 from a subject [to] the wildtype… wherein alteration…indicates a predisposition
to said cancer
• JP3399539 (BRCA1) (lived its life fullest to 2015)
– Claim 1 – A method to identify the presence of breast and ovarian cancer gene in an
individual by comparing BRCA1 gene from the individual to that of the wildtype wherein
alteration indicates the presence of the cancer gene
• JPO Examination Guideline (effective Oct 2015) – patent eligible
– Example 5: A method of examining the susceptibility…to hypertension by determining the
type of base …in X gene…and comparing…with standard
14So What is with Diagnostics Patents?
• Until recently, fetal chromosomal abnormalities detected by highly invasive amniocentesis
and villus chorionic assays involving high risk to the fetus.
• Inventors found presence cell free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in mother’s blood and developed
innovative non-invasive method of detecting cffDNA to do prenatal genetic tests. Filed patent
(US625840) assigned to ISIS.
• Sequenom commercialized MATERNIT21® under license from ISIS using cffDNA detection;
Ariosa launched competing method named HARMONY™
• In Ariosa v Sequenom (Fed Circuit 2015) [Also Inter Partes Review attack]
– CAFC ruled that certain methods claimed in US6258540 patent ineligible
• Claim1. (1) Amplifying paternally inherited DNA from plasma or serum from pregnant
female; and (2) detecting the presence of such DNA of fetal origin
• Sequenom could not block entry of HARMONYTM. Now at least three players using this
method in US.
15Reasons behind CAFC’s decision
• Claims are directed to natural phenomenon (of paternally inherited cffDNA being present in
maternal blood/serum), and recited steps of amplifying and detecting are routine methods
• Applied analysis of Mayo
• First determine if claim is directed to “judicial exceptions” (i.e. law of nature, natural
phenomenon, or abstract ideas), if so, determine if significantly more is added to the
claim.
• Judge Dyke in denying hearing “en banc” said the claims might be patentable if
“narrow in scope” otherwise they are overbroad
– Narrower the claim, the invention will be designed around
• JP4245666 – Claim 1 substantially identical to US claim still alive, and clinical trial on the
technology started 2016 in Japan
16Another Attack under § 101
• In 2017, the District of Delaware would have addressed Merck’s § 101 challenge (BMS/Ono
v Merck) to three “Honjo patents” for methods of treating cancers using anti-PD1 antibodies
– eg US9067999
1. A method of treating a lung cancer comprising administering a composition
comprising a human or humanized anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody…
• In April 2016, Delaware court accepted Merck’s argument that the claims were directed to
the natural phenomenon of using T cells to activate the immune system, thereby satisfying
the first prong of § 101 analysis under Mayo
– Second prong of whether claims “add enough” beyond the natural phenomenon would
have been addressed in early 2017
• Update
– Oct 24, 2016, Ono sued Merck for infringement under counterparts JP4409430 and
JP5159730 having substantially the same claims as the US claims
– Jan 20, 2017, Merck and Ono/BMS settled in US/EP/Japan for high royalty.
17
• Japanese patents also contributed to extraction of royalties !!You can also read
